Israeli lobby in Britain ..Gilad Atzmon

[blackbear]

Some People Never Learn the Lesson

Gilad Atzmon – Peace Palestine Blogspot December 4, 2007

On Thursday afternoon, Gordon Brown learned that he was to become only the second sitting British Prime Minister to be subject to a police investigation.

This is happening less than six months after Tony Blair had left Downing Street under the severe cloud of a police probe into the Cash for Honours affair.

For Blair it was No 1 Labour fundraiser, the Zionist Lord Levy who got him into serious trouble, for Brown it is Mr David Abrahams (in the photo, Abrahams is on the right, with an MP friend), just another 'Friend of Israel' and a provincial chairman of Jewish Labour, who may be the one to finish off his political career.

Once again, the Labour Party had to admit that it erred by accepting donations from dubious sources. ''The money was not lawfully declared, so it will be returned,' said the Prime Minister, after the disclosure that Labour had benefited to the tune of more than GBP 600,000 from a bizarre funding scheme arranged by David Abrahams, an eccentric property tycoon who decided to donate his money by proxy.

Apparently, Lord Levy and David Abrahams were not alone in dragging Labour towards yet another political disaster. The third corner in this disastrous triangle is Mr Jon Mendelsohn, a man who grasps the power of money and politics. Mr Mendelsohn, an ex-chairman of Labour Friends of Israel, is the current chief fundraiser of the Labour Party.

Seemingly and shamefully, the Labour Party did not learn its lesson following the Lord Levy 'Cash for Honours' scandal. Once again they let the supporters of Israel take care of their material needs.

I find myself wondering how come Labour is so heavily entangled with those 'Friends of Israel'? However, the most crucial issue here is actually the fact that not a single British media outlet dares to ask the most important questions: what is this cabal of self-declared 'Friends of Israel' trying to achieve by pouring money into political parties? What is it that it is trying to buy? Where is the money coming from? Is it their own money or is it delivered by their 'friends' in the Israeli embassy or another Zionist apparatus?

British society is a multicultural society, this means that very many people of different ethnic and racial origins live together in peace and mutual respect. This is probably the greatest asset that the British culture can offer momentarily, a multi-ethnic society made of communities of people who treat each other with respect and tolerance. Many British Jews benefit and contribute to the British multi-ethnic society. However, within the liberal multi-cultural discourse it is 'politically incorrect' to associate ethnicity and unlawful acts, something that our 'Friends of Israel' and 'Jewish Labour' exploit beyond belief. Though they operate as an ethnic lobby, promoting some radical, exclusive Jewish National interests, they wouldn't like to be exposed as such, definitely not in reference to their overwhelmingly disclosed unlawful activity.

A quick glance into the ideological fundaments the 'Labour Friend of Israel' makes it clear that we are dealing here with some ardent Zionist Neo-conservative worldviews: 'We are fundamentally sympathetic to Israel's position as a liberal democracy facing constant security dilemmas and existential threats'. For those who fail to understand: Israel is indeed a democracy as long as you are Jewish. Within the Israeli controlled territories, the vast majority of the Palestinians are not even citizens. Strictly speaking, the 'Labour Friends of Israel', fundamentally supports an apartheid racist Jewish state i.e. Israel. If this is not bad enough, they do just that at the heart of British politics. Moreover, they do just that without even respecting the elementary British ethical political norms.
Amid British multi-culturalism, no one in Britain dares question the clear cabal of Zionists who were fully engaged in transforming British politics into a Zionist internal affair. British press and the media is fully aware of the complexity entangled with those Friends of Israel and their fundamental sympathy, yet, they are filling their mouths with water. Instead of standing up against this dangerous lobby that acts to ally Britain with an apartheid state, they use some sticky language, leaving the conclusions to the readers, if they are able to make up their minds on their own. They refer to Jon Mendlesohn's affiliation within the Labour Friends of Israel, they refer to David Abrahams being a provincial vice-chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement.

I think that British media should be brave enough to stand up and report that there is an Israeli lobby in Britain acting under the name of Jewish Labour as well as Labour Friends of Israel. There is no German lobby in Britain acting under the name 'Aryan Labour' operating as well as 'Friends of Germany'. Nor there is a Black Labour organisation also lobbying as the Friends of Zimbabwe. Seemingly, Zionist lobbyists are the only ones who get away with their unique form of racially orientated lobbying activity.

Funnily enough, the only press outlet in Britain that was brave enough to confront the severe implications of the current Jewish affair was actually the leading British Jewish weekly, the JC (Jewish Chronicle).

'Fears were growing this week of an antisemitic backlash following the latest Labour Party cash scandal involving two prominent Jewish activists', said the JC in its main article last Friday.

The JC does realise that the affair would eventually affect the community. Seemingly, the JC does not doubt the truth behind the current revelation. "The two main figures in this week's controversy are Jon Mendelsohn, the Prime Minister's election campaign fundraiser, and property magnate David Abrahams, who is accused of breaking the law by using third parties to disguise donations of GBP 600,000 to Labour", said the JC.

Yet, being the leading Jewish press outlet and addressing mainly British Jewish audience, the paper offers as well an 'Elder of Zion' like pretext just to try to cheer its readers. There is a 'whiff of antisemitism about it', says MP Andrew Dismore to the JC. "People are looking for links to Jewish interests and evidence of a Jewish conspiracy. The press are turning every stone to find one."

I find myself wondering how the JC can report some clear unlawful conduct in one paragraph and then suggest a "Jewish conspiracy" in the next. For those who do not realise, Abrahams and Mendelsohn are not a hidden conspiracy, their acts have been exposed in broad daylight, they are mainstream news on the front of each paper in this country, subject to police scrutiny.

"The Hendon MP said he did not believe the case would have received such intensive coverage if it did not involve Jews. The undercurrent of antisemitism is worrying."

May I assure the ignoramus Hendon MP that an exposed cabal of Saudi businessmen trying to buy a leading British party would get at least as much attention.

Paul Usiskin, another Labour supporter and co-chair of Peace Now UK, said: "It doesn't do the reputation of people communally linked to Israel any good to find themselves willingly or unwillingly at the centre of matters to do with politics and money."

Once again, I find myself bewildered, this Usiskin sees things through, yet he himself involved in some Judeo- centric political activity as a lobbyer for the Zionist Peace Now UK.

"I hope," adds Usiskin, "that in contrast to previous issues of this kind, people do not link historical relations between Jews and financial affairs."

And I find myself wondering again, why shouldn't they? In fact, every British citizen in general and British Jews in particular must reflect just about that because this is the crux of the issue.

Jon Benjamin, the Chief Executive of the notorious Board of Deputies, the Jewish Lobby that recently tried to shatter the career of the democratically elected Mayor of London, was there to say, "there is wide concern in this story and clearly there is a potential for it to turn against us. We have been there before."

For a change, I agree with Jon Benjamin. Indeed you had been there before and more than once, yet somehow you never learn your lesson.
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/12/gilad-atzmon-some-people-ne ver-learn.html

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=7638

[blackcat]

Its just a coincidence. Dogsmilk will be along in a moment to explain it all away.

[rodin]

I have been bringing this up. Don't forget Ecclestone & Maxwell nee Koch. Mandelson. Many in the cabinet are Jewish - Brown & Shadow. Oliver Letwin is out and out Rothschild. Doesn't Alam Milburn make yr flesh creep?

Nice bunch, aren't they?

And you can bet there are many more than we know about

Brown (or as we say on 'NET' - NWORB) is of the Manse and like Peter Power may be pulling back from the brink. Brown must know by now how Rothschild keeps pulling stings on the UK - Waterloo, agent Soros and of course buying gold at the bottom in 1999, while he was still running the London PM Fix (since relinquished - and thereby hangs a tale)

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/charts/big.chart?symb=38099902&compid x=aaaaa%3A0&ma=0&maval=9&uf=0&lf=4&lf2=0&lf3=0&type=2&size=2&state=8&s id=2213&style=320&time=20&freq=1&comp=NO%5FSYMBOL%5FCHOSEN&nosettings= 1&rand=2343&mocktick=1

Swapped our gold for dollars he did. Nice bet, Gordon.

[wepmob2000]

Y-a-wn......... psssstt, don'tcha know the jooos did it....

Not denying that all the above named are a particularly motley crew of crooks and villains, but this endless obsession with religious 'affiliation' is very tiresome, and hints at agendas altogether more sinister than 'truthseeking' (and as always the usual suspects are involved ).

I always thought, for example, that Ecclestone (a particularly nauseating wizened old man) had only one faith - making money. So if he is Jewish (which is far from definite) its still of no importance, so what exactly is the relevance of the above posts?

[wepmob2000]

P.S. I was thinking of starting a 'Muslim-Watch' thread, just to.... even things up a bit. I trust my completely non-anti-semetic and not-racist friends 'Rodin', 'Blackcat', and 'Blackbear' will be amongst the most prolific of contributors................

[blackcat]

[karlos]

Going back to the original post, i dont buy the theory that they are trying to get rid of Brown.
Blair was the darling of the zionists, nobody could have been more slavish than Blair.
Brown was handed the top job in a coronation without any dissent or challenge.
Both are and were card carrying zionists. Brown was taken to Israel every six months as a child by his father and Brown is today the head of the Jewish National fund.
So i dont support the theory that the puppetmasters like Abrahams and Ecclestone and Soros want to replace Brown with a true blue zionist such as one of the Miliband sons of Adolf Miliband.
Why should they bother?
Miliband will not be more pro NWO or Israel than Blair or Brown.

What this drip drip of scandal is, is really crooked people with their hands in the till running our country for the last decade. Abrahams is not a property tycoon, his dad was Mayor and basically it is that old chestnut of giving yourself planning permission while denying it to others. Abrahams £600k bought him planning consents.
Big difference between Labour and the Tories always is that Labour guys are always willing to accept bungs. They get into politics to get ahead whereas tories already tend to be wealthy before they enter politics.
That is a fact. Compare Heseltine and Prescot for example. Prescot a waiter on a ferry - Heseltine worth £100 million before he entered politics. In fact Tony Benn was the only Labour one who bucked the trend.
So i would say i really dont think we can rightly point the finger at the implied religion of anyone. Dissmore, Ecclestone, Miliband, etc they are not anything like any Jews i know. They dont cover their heads, they dont observe the sabbath, etc in fact i would say all these zionist Labour supporters are atheists and are simply making money and peddling influence. Brown and Blair are therefore zionist whores.
Dont forget real Jews consider the state of Israel to be an abomination forbidden by God.

[rodin]

[rodin]

[wepmob2000]

[simplesimon]

Abrahams has threatened ministers that it could get dirty.

He seems to be saying "I'll disclose certain things, if you don't back off".

I wonder what makes him think he can get away with that?

[blackcat]

[wepmob2000]

[Dogsmilk]

[brian]

Behind the Iraq Dossier Hoax: Intelligence Was Cooked in Israel

by Jeffrey Steinberg


-- The entire cooked intelligence picture was "Made in Israel." It was cooked up at a right-wing think-tank complex notorious as a hotbed of radical Likudnik propaganda, and with links to the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney, via his Chief of Staff Lewis Libby and his former client, Marc Rich.

The essential facts are as follows: Two days before Powell's UN appearance, 10 Downing Street issued a 16-page paper, "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception, and Intimidation," purportedly based on high-level British intelligence data. In fact, at least 11 of the 16 pages were lifted, verbatim, from an Israeli journal, Middle East Review of International Affairs, whose sole proprieter is Dr. Barry Rubin, an American-born Israeli citizen. The 11 pages were drawn from two articles, by Ibrahim al-Marashi and Robert Rabil, that appeared in the September 2002 edition of that journal.

Al-Marashi's article, a profile of Iraqi intelligence, was drawn, largely, from Iraqi government documents confiscated during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Al-Marashi, in turn, heavily footnoted his article to other, earlier stories published in Rubin's obscure online journal, by Amazia Baram, the journal's deputy editor.

This was no bit of grammar school plagiarism. The public relations team that put together the Blair and Powell propaganda drivel were themselves linked to Rubin and his fellow Israeli pranksters, through Ahmed Chalabi's discredited and corrupt Iraqi National Congress (INC). Chalabi, University of Chicago protégé of the late utopian Albert Wohlstetter, then fugitive swindler, was adopted as the Iraqi oppositionist-of-choice by Israeli "X Committee" agent and chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle and his British Arab Bureau handler, Dr. Bernard Lewis, in the 1980s.

Rubin and the Chicken-hawk Intelligence Agency
Rubin issued a statement following the Downing Street dossier flap, taking full credit for the cooked intelligence report. His only complaint was that, while the Blair government apologized to Al-Marashi, they did not issue a similar public statement of regret to him and his journal.

To have done so would have been suicidal, as a quick review of Rubin's pedigree makes clear.

According to three current biographies, Prof. Barry Rubin is the deputy director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Israel, and a senior fellow at Hebrew University's Harry Truman Center and Haifa University's Jewish-Arab Center. He is the director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center, research director of the Lauder School of Government Policy and Diplomacy, and a senior fellow at the International Center for Counterterrorist Policy (ICT)—all of which are part of the Interdisciplinary Center, Israel's first private university, in Herzliya.

The Lauder School was named after Ronald Lauder, the former Reagan Ambassador to Austria, former president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, soon-to-be-successor of Edgar Bronfman Sr. as head of the World Jewish Congress, and a notorious financier of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.--

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3007neocon_hoax.html

[kbo234]

Gilad Atzmon is an unusual Jewish voice and thank God for his contribution.

Here is another Jewish Universalist (as opposed to self-serving Zionist) thinker, Rabbi Weiss:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3734478784823719900&q=rabbi+ weiss&total=77&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2


On the other hand......

.........here are two much more typical contributions.......in this instance from Nick Cohen, one of our many Jewish commentators in the mainstream press (and these are the Jewish protagonists who, sadly, get the big audience).
The award of the Turner Prize to Mark Hollinger for bringing Brian Haw's posters into the hallowed halls of the Tate Gallery has really upset him. It's a pleasure to know that the little b*stard is squirming:


The Turner judges have been hoodwinked


Mark Wallinger's award shows that the liberal establishment still can't confront the truth

Nick Cohen
Sunday December 9, 2007
The Observer

Brian Haw's 'anti-war' protest in the middle of Parliament Square is still going, six years on from when he first planted his ragged banners on the grass in the traffic island. Politicians have tried to censor him, the police have forced him to shorten his once straggling display, but he survives and looks as if he will stay there until he drops.

I found the banners a bleak sight when I trudged by. Like so many others, Haw can't ask who is killing whom in Iraq. There are no slogans expressing his disgust at the death squads of the Baathists and Iranian-backed Shia militias, nor of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the late leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who explained that he would murder Iraq's Shias indiscriminately so that they would retaliate and 'show the Sunnis their rabies and bare the teeth... and drag them into the arena of sectarian war'. The placards about Afghanistan continue the theme and don't manage a word of criticism of the Taliban's crimes and ideology. Western governments are responsible for the woes of humanity; no one else is worth mentioning.

The best justification for Haw's morality is that if British and American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot guarantee order, they are indirectly responsible for atrocities committed by their opponents. As the inevitable conclusion is that they should try harder to defeat their enemies, it is not a point that Haw would want to hear.

For all his double standards, I was not as shocked by his protest as I expected to be. Familiarity breeds indifference as much as contempt, and in any case the arguments around Haw were never about whether he was right or wrong, but whether the government had the right to silence him. As freedom includes the freedom to be purblind, it didn't, and the efforts of New Labour to close down his demonstration were as great a sign as its laws against the incitement of religious hatred that it could not tolerate the robust debates of free societies.

Last week, however, Haw stopped being a lone protester you must defend regardless of his views. His ideology went mainstream and he became the darling of the art establishment.

The Turner judges gave Mark Wallinger the 2007 prize for his recreation of Haw's original line of banners denouncing 'baby killers' and 'B-liar', displayed first at Tate Britain and now at Tate Liverpool. The judges praised Wallinger directly and Haw by implication for 'the immediacy, visceral intensity and historic importance' of a work that 'combines a bold political statement with art's ability to articulate fundamental human truths'.

Hyperbole at this intensity usually conceals insecurity. I wonder whether the Turner judges blustered because they knew in their hearts that in the current climate in liberal England Wallinger would have made a 'bold political statement' if he had put a piece defending the government in the Tate.

As it was, he produced lifeless propaganda that even the converted found preachy. His State Britain is merely a reproduction of Haw's protest - the Tate's equivalent of an Airfix model - and an aesthetically and politically inferior reproduction at that. Even after the police cut back their number, Haw's tattered banners stained with mud and rain are far more powerful, not least because of their location opposite the Parliament whose politicians he despises. Wallinger's clean-cut copy, by contrast, sits in a gallery where it runs no risks; a deodorised protest that will never worry the authorities.

Just to make sure gallery visitors get the message, a history of the demonstration accompanies the exhibit. No one, not Wallinger, not the staff of Tate Britain or Tate Liverpool, not the Turner judges found it odd that Haw the 'peace campaigner' began his protest in the summer of 2001 when the second Iraq war did not begin until the spring of 2003.

The chronology should have alerted them that they were celebrating a man happy to duck into the darkest corners of the left. Haw says he was moved to demonstrate by George Galloway's Mariam Appeal, a charity meant to help Iraqis who were the victims of both United Nations sanctions and Saddam Hussein's genocidal regime. If Haw knew in 2001 that Galloway had flown to Baghdad to salute Saddam's 'courage, strength and indefatigability', after the tyrant had ordered the extermination of the Kurds, it didn't bother him. He probably couldn't have known at the time that Saddam had turned the UN's oil-for-food programme from a relief operation to help starving Iraqis escape the worst effects of sanctions and his rule into a scam to enrich him, his sons and his supporters overseas. Among the beneficiaries was the Mariam Appeal, which was meant to be helping the hungry, but received hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Jordanian businessman who was selling Iraqi oil.

Haw has no excuse for not knowing about the Mariam Appeal now. The Commons Standards and Privileges Committee reported in July that 'there was strong circumstantial evidence that the oil-for-food programme was used by the Iraqi government, with Mr Galloway's connivance, to fund the campaigning activities of the Mariam Appeal'. He also ought to know that al-Qaeda was responsible for the slaughter on 9/11 - it's hardly a secret. But in a video for the 'alternative' news site rinf.com, Haw announces that '9/11 was an inside job, yes it was', organised by the American government and Hollywood, apparently.

Like Holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracy theories are too much for the type of person who sits on the Turner prize jury, but anything else goes. They share with Haw the inability to walk and chew gum at the same time - to oppose George W Bush while supporting the victims of Baathism and Islamism.

Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I don't think the moral blindness of the intelligentsia can last much longer. Obviously, some who have lost their bearings after Iraq will never find them again and stagger around bellowing for the rest of their days, but the hysterical mood is lifting from others. When they regain their wits, I hope they will see the decision of art grandees to celebrate Haw and his hagiographer as the low point from which the only way was up.

2) How condescension benefits terrorism


If European Muslims are treated like children, is it surprising that some should act so irrationally?


Nick Cohen
Sunday November 25, 2007
The Observer

I looked at the heckler at the Labour meeting and imagined his life in an instant. As a man of the 1968 generation there must have been sit-ins and marches, along with vicarious thrills at the triumphs of communists from Cambodia to Cuba. I guessed that with communism dead he would have no difficulty in endorsing the new threat to the status quo from the radical right. I wasn't disappointed.

Only rich Iranians wanted democracy, he declared. The true voice of the masses, the tribune of the people we must attend to and negotiate with, was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I have become so used to hearing leftists defending reactionaries I am no longer shocked. But my '68er surprised me with a form of bad faith I had never seen in the flesh before. Alongside me on the platform were three liberals from Muslim backgrounds: Ed Husain, who renounced the jihad lovers of Hizb ut-Tahrir and joined the Labour party; Shiv Malik, a secular left-wing journalist; and Rokhsana Fiaz, whose Change Institute works to diminish cultural tensions.

They shared the principles he professed to hold. But he looked through them. At home and abroad he treated Muslims who rejected the religious right with casual condescension.

You might say that Fiaz and Malik are hardly marginal figures and Husain has become a political phenomenon who convinces audiences with all the charm and skill of the young Tony Blair. I wouldn't have mentioned their confrontation with the Sixties' radical if it didn't echo a broader trahison des clercs in the liberal West.

Earlier this year, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel, an account of how she escaped from a world of genital mutilation and forced marriage to find asylum and the free thinking of the Enlightenment in Holland, was published. She was attacked, as feminists are, but the assault wasn't led by the churches and Daily Mail but by Timothy Garton Ash and Ian Buruma, men who saw themselves as liberal thinkers. There was an intellectual scandal in Europe, and the New Republic in Washington devoted most of an issue to what the controversy revealed about the contortions of liberal thought. Accusations of double standards weren't thrown about simply because academics who knew no terror in their lives had turned on a woman who can't step outside without bodyguards - just because fanatics want to kill her doesn't make Hirsi Ali right - but because the liberals treated her with a superciliousness unthinkable in the late 20th century.

Garton Ash wrote in the New York Review of Books that journalists were more interested in her beauty than her ideas. 'If she had been short, squat, and squinting, her story and views might not be so closely attended to.' She was an 'Enlightenment fundamentalist', he continued, as bigoted in her way as the Muslim Brotherhood she opposed. On this reading, there is no moral difference between those who would subjugate women, kill Jews and homosexuals, place the dictates of a seventh-century holy book above the parliaments of free peoples... and those who wouldn't. Liberal intellectuals have no obligation to make a choice between religious fundamentalists and 'Enlightenment fundamentalists', and indeed could devote their energies to condemning the latter rather than the former.

Garton Ash met Hirsi Ali at an electric meeting in London on Wednesday. Unlike Buruma he had the good sense and good grace to think again and he gave her a public apology. Nevertheless, he stuck to the argument that there was no point in liberals treating her as a heroine because her abandonment of Islam and embrace of atheism meant her arguments carried no weight with Muslims. Instead he told us to encourage those Muslims who reject the stoning of women because they dispute its scriptural authority. Religious debates about whether the Prophet Muhammad really approved of stoning may be 'gobbledegook', but, he cried, 'We must support gobbledegook that is compatible with liberal democracy.'

I'm not sure how he can be certain that Hirsi Ali has no influence. How does he know what seeds she is planting in the minds of Muslim women? I know one former jihadi who thought again after reading Salman Rushdie, but I accept he's not typical. Ed Husain points out that he and most men like him did not embrace democracy because they had been convinced by liberal secularists but because they had found alternative interpretations of the Koran. Islam had freed them from the prison of Islamism.

I'm not arguing with him. In my view trouble comes only when white liberals who don't understand religious politics assume any far rightist can be a friend so long as he stops short of planting bombs on the London underground. Garton Ash says we should listen to Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, who doesn't want to ban the stoning of women, merely to impose 'a moratorium' on murder.

Jack Straw agrees and sends civil servants to seek Ramadan's advice on how to combat extremism. Next month Derek Pasquill, a Foreign Office civil servant, faces trial under the Official Secrets Act. His alleged crime is nothing as trivial as losing confidential information on 25 million people but of embarrassing the FCO by leaking details of how it planned to send public money to radical Islamist groups in the Middle East. Last week Liberal Democrat politicians and Sir Ian Blair of the Met joined a Muslim Brotherhood rally whose star speaker was a Saudi cleric who until recently called for jihad against coalition forces in Iraq.

Never make the mistake of thinking that intellectual arguments are esoteric disputes that can't shape wider politics. As JM Keynes said, 'the world is ruled by little else'.

Ayaan Hirsi listened to Garton Ash and had two questions. If liberal secularists, like my heckler, didn't have pride and confidence in their principles, why should they expect anyone else to take them seriously? And if, like Garton Ash, they turned away from democrats and insisted on treating European Muslims as children who can only be spoken to in the baby language of gobbledegook, what right did they have to be surprised if European Muslims reacted with childish petulance rather than the broad-mindedness of full adult citizens?